Seòmar agus comataidhean

The short answer is that, with any investigation powers, you can investigate and report, but the issue is then about the enforcement of the recommendations that come out of that report. That is the bit that I am closely considering.

The SHRC and the EHRC have an important statutory role in relation to the rights of disabled people. Their remit is to ensure the protection of the rights of a wide range of people, including people in specific groups, as I said—in this particular case, people with disabilities.

Sorry—I have lost my thread a little. You can remind me if I have lost track or you need further information.

Good morning, convener, and thank you for your invitation to contribute to the evidence session on this member’s bill. It would be remiss of me not to note that sitting on this side of the table is an interesting viewpoint, having been on the other side of it at one point.

I start by recognising and thanking Jeremy Balfour for the attention that he has drawn to disabled people’s equality through the bill. We are acutely aware of the exceptionally challenging times that disabled people in Scotland are living through. Disabled people continue to be impacted by the cost of living crisis that is gripping the United Kingdom and, alongside facing higher costs of living, a great many are being pushed into deepening poverty. I take the opportunity to recognise the unstinting work of disabled people’s organisations and communities across Scotland in tackling those challenges.

I share Jeremy Balfour’s intentions in introducing the bill. Improving the lives of disabled people and furthering disability equality are priorities for this Government, committed as we are to delivering a fairer Scotland for all.

As the Minister for Equalities, I have a key role in considering the possible implications of legislative proposals that fall within my portfolio. I am happy to share my learning and understanding in order to support the committee’s scrutiny of the bill.

Tackling the challenges that disabled people face is a collective responsibility and it requires a shared commitment across the public, private and third sectors. To secure real change, we must focus resource and opportunity where they are needed most.

We have concerns about a few of the bill’s provisions, which are currently being scrutinised, and we are considering very carefully the establishment of a disability commissioner and whether that is the right vehicle through which to achieve the change. The most significant concern that the Scottish Government has is the potential for the bill to simply duplicate functions that are already undertaken by existing bodies. As well as possibly being inefficient use of public money, that risks causing a lack of legal certainty and making it less clear to disabled people whom they can turn to for help.

Although the commissioner would have a single focus on disabled people’s rights, there are a few commissions that protect the rights of disabled people, including the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It is notable that the Scottish Human Rights Commission has raised concerns about the potential weakening of its mandate that could be caused by the proliferation of commissioners.

That links closely to another key concern—the content and timing of the bill. There is already, in Scotland, a complex commissioner landscape which, as the committee knows, is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Part of the inquiry’s remit is to consider whether a more strategic approach is needed to the creation of commissioners in Scotland. Whatever that committee’s recommendations will be, its report will surely require significant consideration by the Parliament and further dialogue with Government and other stakeholders. Given that context, it seems to be inadvisable to bring a new commissioner into an already complex environment at this time.

To add further context to our position, the Scottish Government is preparing to publish the first phase of a disability equality plan that is aimed at tackling the systemic barriers that affect the daily lives of disabled people and impact on disability poverty. The plan, which has been developed in partnership with disabled people’s organisations, will bring about significant progress in advancing disability equality. Setting up a disability commissioner could divert resources from that valuable work without there being an evidence base to suggest that it would be an effective way of achieving change.

Although we have concerns about the bill, our commitment to furthering equality means that I remain open to hearing alternative views. I reiterate our commitment to greatly improving the position of disabled people in Scottish society, and I extend an invitation to Mr Balfour to discuss those shared aims.

I look forward to answering the committee’s questions.

As I have already mentioned, there are issues with having another commissioner that would add to the proliferation of public bodies that we have when, as part of the public service equality duty reform, we want to make sure that whatever we do is sustainable in the long run. We need to make sure that resources are used economically, efficiently and effectively.

Very little research has been published in Scotland and the UK on commissions and commissioners. There has also been little evaluation of the pros and cons of different approaches and powers of working. In that context, therefore, there is a limit to what I can say. The programme for government and the financial statement are still to come, so please forgive me if I am speaking in very general terms. I know that we do not need reminding, but the Finance and Public Administration Committee is also doing an inquiry into that and I will be keen to hear what it says.

Yes, I would say that we absolutely need clout. Indeed, I think that I said as much in my previous remarks. I suppose, though, that what we are considering is whether the establishment of a commissioner is the way to go about doing that. All I can go on is what is in the bill, and the bill does not contain any enforcement powers. I will therefore be very interested to see what you recommend after you have done all your work and scrutiny, and I look forward to reading your report and its recommendations.

As I have said, there is a piece of work to be done on our current bodies and why they are not executing their statutory powers, and we also need a little bit more detail on the public sector equality duty. After all, these bodies have a duty to report. I am currently looking at what mechanisms short of legislation I can use. Legislation is important, because it sets the baseline, but there is another thing that I have not yet mentioned—the cultural change that is required and which is becoming quite apparent to me as I get more and more into my equalities role. We might have the bodies, the agencies, the plans and the strategies, but the issue is the will of people to meet the obligations that they should be meeting. What are the barriers that we are facing? We need the research, the data and the evidence, but we also need the tools. In that respect, there is a carrot-and-stick aspect to making sure that we deal with the issue.

When it comes to addressing poverty more widely, we have taken action on that through our social security powers, but there are limits to what we can do in that regard with our devolved settlement and budget. A different social security system has been set up that disabled people’s organisations have told me is much more compassionate and much more accessible. Obviously, we can improve things, and we will listen very carefully to feedback from those organisations and improve as we go.

Child poverty fits into that. There are many children who live in households where someone has a disability. That brings me back to the issue of intersectionality, which is a challenge. To come back to your initial question, would a commissioner pull all that together? It is possible that they would, but whether they would have the statutory function and the enforcement powers to do that is an issue that we are debating.

You make an important point. We talked about mainstreaming and the current duty bearers and those who have enforcement powers. There is a requirement for a champion and for someone who is solely focused on advancing rights, especially for disabled people, because that is what we are discussing today. I have a great deal of sympathy for that.

The bit that I am drilling down into is the question of how that role would sit with the Scottish Human Rights Commission, for instance. Would the bill have two areas where there is a lack of teeth rather than having one area that could be enhanced further? In its current form, the bill does not have any enforcement powers, which I find interesting.

You are right to mention advocacy. Could that role be done through other means? I suggested that champions would do that. Again, there are questions around how that would work. Would it be effective for each of the 32 local authorities to have a disability champion that could undertake the work that is in the bill? I am grappling with all of those questions, because as I said, I am genuinely in a neutral space where I am weighing up all the options and considering what would be the most effective way of doing this.

The rapporteur model is a model that is often used. Rapporteurs are often quoted in chamber debates. They make a mark, as they are able to have research done and to draw on that. They can also make international comparisons, hold bodies to account and provide evidence. There are many ways of doing it.

The advocacy role is essential—we must have that. Whether the bill provides enough in relation to the advocacy role to give the commissioner the teeth that disabled people’s organisations have asked for is the question that I am asking.

I have a personal view on that. Although I mentioned some of the initiatives, policies, funding, support and funds, the situation is multifaceted and complex. I have touched on the fact that this comes under the remit of equalities but that, actually, we cannot get away from the fact that mainstreaming—I think—is the way forward. I am thinking about whose responsibility it is, and that is my concern about a commissioner. Intersectional barriers make it more complex to address issues. In my position, for instance, as a woman of colour, would I access services for women, services for ethnic minorities or services for disabled people? Where would you go for that support?

The observation that I would make with regard to the historical limited progress that has been made on the impact on disabled people’s lives is this: who takes responsibility for it? You are almost having to choose your own hierarchy. Is the issue your disabledness? Is it your curtailed employability? Is it your accessible housing? People should not have to choose.

This is all about looking at the whole person. Part of my role, then, as Minister for Equalities is to work cross-portfolio and to ensure that every portfolio is meeting its responsibility to mainstream disabled people’s rights. They have done so, but those rights need to be taken up if they are to have that impact.

I absolutely have sympathy on the matter. It is complex, but we all need to do it. I suppose that the disability commissioner would have a role in making sure that that happened, but I also highlight the public sector equality duty, in that respect. There are bodies out there, and there might be options where we can beef up that aspect. I know that disabled people’s organisations, for instance, are very conscious that any such commissioner would have to have teeth, so we would need to look at issues such as enforcement. The fact, though, is that we already have bodies that deal with statutory rights, and there is more work to be done to ensure that those statutory rights are executed properly and that they have that impact.

Well, I cannot say too much about that, because of the programme for government. Once we are over the next few days, I will be happy to write to you and the committee to give you more information on that.

As I said, the programme for government and the financial statement are yet to come. However, if there is anything wider to say to the committee, I am more than happy to provide further information drilling down into the numbers once we all have it over the next few days. I am happy to write to you with more detailed information, Ms McNair.

I think that the benefits are obvious. The motto is “Nothing about us without us.”

Disabled people’s organisations are excellent representatives. They would be the first ones to say that hearing directly from those with lived experience and those with learned experience is so important because, with the best will in the world, no matter how much we think that we know best, we do not. It works both ways: some of the things that I perceive would be difficult for people are not a big deal for them, but there are other things that we do not see.

The practical reality is that it will be a challenge to ensure that the bill and the commissioner are truly inclusive. We need to consider how the consultation will take place—will it be done online? That will have various implications relating to travel, health and social care, and carers, for example. All of those things will come into it.

That feeds back into the financial area. We need to consider whether those things have been taken into account in order to make the bill truly meaningful. I would look for transparency regarding the additional costs that would arise from those things and at where those costs would be accounted for, to ensure that those things happen. Does that answer your question?

Thank you for recognising that the commissioner landscape is already complex. As I said, the Finance and Public Administration Committee is considering whether a more coherent and strategic approach is needed to the creation of commissioners in Scotland. Under the current financial climate in particular, we need to be extra considerate of the financial sustainability of a growing commissioner landscape while ensuring that the people of Scotland are also well served. If there are too many commissioners, disabled people might not know where they can go for help. The accessibility of that help is equally important.

That issue was raised in the consultation on the bill, notably by both the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Law Society of Scotland. There are issues on which the bill has the potential to overlap with the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s existing functions. There are also several provisions in the bill that correspond broadly to the provisions in the Equality Act 2006. Under the Equality Act 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has powers that relate to all those with protected characteristics, including disabled people. Therefore, there is a possibility that there could be a weakening of the duties that, for instance, the Scottish Human Rights Commission already has, and it has expressed that concern.

In one of the committee’s evidence sessions, Nick Hobbs of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland also voiced concerns about a new commissioner making it more difficult for existing stakeholders to undertake work. I will stop there.